Refine Immigration Policy to Reflect History and the Moment We Live In

America, the free and democratic country whose moral strength made it the victor of the Cold War, now wants to enforce its immigration laws by the most inhumane means possible. Deny illegals health care. Deny them education. Deny them non-emergency aid after the Northridge quake. Indeed, Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Huntington Beach) even proposed that illegals be deported when they showed up at earthquake aid centers.

The debate over immigration appears all but over: Democrats and Republicans alike leap-frog over each other to propose ever more restrictionist policies. Five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, are we on the verge of erecting a similar wall on our southern border?

The consensus that there is an “illegal” problem even includes Latino elected officials, who late last year formed Proponents for Responsible Immigration Debate & Education (PRIDE) in an attempt to counter anti-immigrant proposals. The coalition has been largely silent about the future of that portion of the Latino population who can’t prove legal residency. Rather than advocate for the undocumented, a mission most consider political suicide, PRIDE officials have generally lauded the Clinton Administration’s new immigration policy because it appropriates money for the naturalization of “legal” residents.

Yet, this obsession with “legality” in the immigration debate misses the point. Immigration policy, in practice and policy, is out of touch with both history and the moment in which we live. In an era of globalized capital, the right of people to freely move across frontiers must also be recognized.

California cannot escape the consequences of this emerging era. One day soon, the state will have an Asian and Latino majority. Those who fear a hostile takeover by a cultural “other” fail to see that immigration to America cuts both ways: The “immigrant” and the “native” are remade, and both become the stronger for it. The American spirit grows by embracing the “other” and by the “other” embracing it.

Immigration restrictionists would stop this acculturation. The truth is, the immigrant has already embraced us--in some cases literally. Think of the Salvadoran or Mexican nannies who help working moms. Think of the food on the dinner table each night: Brown hands grew and picked it from California soil. Walk city sidewalks, where vendors strive to resurrect the moribund American dream. Ride public buses, in which immigrants travel to their jobs in the pre-dawn hours.

No, it’s not some mysterious “other” that has “invaded” California. Rather, it is the immigrant come to remind us of what America really is: a land of optimism, a culture born from the cross-germination of its member cultures. To wall off the immigration from the south and from Asia would be to deny America its second great immigrant transfusion.

Not that this cultural and economic rejuvenation has ever been easy. Nativists and their immigrant-advocate counterparts have long clashed over who to allow in--and who to keep out of--the country. It is a paradox at the heart of American identity: We are a country of immigrants, yet we hate immigrants.

In the restrictionist political lexicon, the argument often comes down to this: “Illegals” are in violation of the law, and are thus not entitled to the rights and benefits enjoyed by “legal” citizens. But there is another--more important--factor at work here: Whether or not an immigrant is called an “illegal” depends on economics--and political opportunism.

When nativist sentiments focused on Asians and non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans, the border with Mexico scarcely existed. Mexicans arrived in the Southwest in great numbers during and after the Revolution of 1910, but rarely were they divided into legals and illegals. The Border Patrol’s mission was largely symbolic. Agents would ask migrants to show both hands--if no fingers were missing, you were allowed to cross into America. (Mutilated hands, it was assumed, would mean a life of begging instead of working in the fields.) It wasn’t until the Great Depression that America decided there were too many Mexicans here; the repatriation sent hundreds of thousands of them back to Mexico.

When California agribusiness needed Mexicans during World War II, they weren’t called illegals. But Mexicans deported after the war, as part of Operation Wetback, were.

Now, in the slow-growth ‘90s, immigrants are again branded “illegal.” The problem is that because of exploitation and the way immigration laws are enforced, Latino immigrants are often denied the upward mobility that other groups enjoy.

For months, politicians have relied on a handful of studies that claim immigrants soak up more in social services than they contribute in taxes. But new research from the Urban Institute shows that immigrant labor may actually be contributing more than it is taking away.

“Immigrants in California are not the reason the economy is doing badly,” says Jeffrey Passel of the Urban Institute. “It has much more to do with the defense- industry cutbacks and the flow of federal money to and from California.” Passel’s data also show that “legal” immigrants contribute more to the overall surplus than “illegals” do, but this doesn’t necessarily buttress a restrictionist immigration policy.

Legal residents, who have been in the country longer, tend to have higher levels of education and income. But these “legals” were once recently arrived--indeed, millions were once “illegals.” If given half the chance, today’s undocumented could become a “legal” and productive community.

“Our economy needs that labor, there’s no question about it,” says David Hayes-Bautista of the Alta California Research Center. Of the top five economic sectors in California--agriculture, apparel, entertainment, hi-tech and construction--three of the five “depend almost exclusively on immigrant labor,” he says.

Just as the contributions of the undocumented-immigrant working class are absent from the immigration debate, so is a serious discussion of alternatives to the restrictionist frenzy. But there are options.

A more enlightened immigration policy must address several issues. The “illegal” problem can be dealt with by establishing a new “amnesty” similar to that implemented in 1986. It should target long-term residents, many of whom have established deep roots here. A significant portion are parents of citizen-children who identify more with America than with the old country. This would not be a “gift” to the immigrant. Rather, it would be past-due recognition of immigrants’ role in our economic recovery.

But there is also the “floating” population that crosses back and forth across the border, spending several months working in the fields or in the cities, then returning to Mexico, usually at the end of the year. A new “bracero”-like program to recognize this migrant labor force is necessary. Applicants would be granted temporary residency status, which would entitle them to receive only the most basic social services, such as emergency medical care.

Political issues must be dealt with as well. Because political representation for immigrants, in general, and Latinos, in particular, is inadequate--political scientist Jorge Castaneda calls the situation in California an “electoral apartheid”--a modified electoral scheme should be instituted that would allow legal residents who are not yet citizens to vote in local elections.

Finally, we need to invest more in English-as-a-second-language and citizenship classes so immigrants can join the political and cultural mainstream.

These programs are not merely “pro-immigrant.” They promote middle-class interests as well. To have a work force that is well-educated and healthy--and therefore more productive--is something that contributes to the good of all. It is an investment in our future.

It will take courage to live through this time of transition in California. But the work is already half-done: The immigrant has already embraced us.